Anybody have any feedback good or about about using dynamic_lun's?

i have been using dynamic_luns options for a few months now. So far so good, no issues. We had a couple of RedHat 4 boxes that had to be added to FAs that already had devices mapped over address xFF, so we used dynamic lun masking and it worked great. Supposedly you can start using dynamic lun masking with hosts that already have standard lun masking in place but i had issues with that (tested on windows), so only implemented it on brand new attachment for these hosts.

I agree with Dynamox... We used DLA while migrating Sun/Veritas hosts from an old storage to a new DMX4. Everything worked smooth. Veritas took care of changed luns. We used "dynamic lun" even with Solaris/SDS hosts. We mapped luns at available addresses and used dynamic lun to have same lun number as before. SDS appreciated a lot

We've had some of our storage admins inadvertantly do this. So far, we have not seen any issues, but basically what it appears to do is take the existing LUN IDs in use, and create dynamic ones with the same value for them.

So, if you configure the new dynamic LUN # to be greater than the existing ones allocated to the host (via -lun), you shouldn't have an issue.

You cannot mix manual lun assignment with dynamic_lun assignment.

If you have already assigned LUNS using one method then if you wish to change to the other method you have to remove all of the assigned LUNS from the record and remove the record from the masking database then recreate the masking record using the new method.